Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456High Court1996#1362 most cited

What is Duggal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Duggal & Co. v. CIT · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · failure to investigate · Assessing Officer duty · revision of assessment · lack of inquiry · ITO investigator · limited scrutiny

Also reported as

77 Taxmann 331

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 69CSection 110Section 119

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26limited scrutinyincome-tax officerrevenue expenditurecapital expenditurescrutiny assessment

Judgments citing Duggal & Co. v. CIT

CIT vs. Dlf Power Ltd

Appeal is disposed of

ITA - 973 / 2011HC Delhi29 Nov 2011
Section 115JSection 263Section 80I

…rd “erroneous” include cases where the Assessing Officer has remained passive and has failed to ascertain true facts by making necessary enquiry. Failure to deal and make necessary enquiry makes an order erroneous. [Also see Duggal and Co. vs. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del)]. 9. The term „prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” are of wide import and if the Assessing Officer fails to apply his mind to the case in the right perspective, there is prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Loss of revenue may not be the sole criteria. 2011:DHC:6095-DB ITA 973/2011 Page 5 of 7 10. It has been he…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 504 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…412 (All.); CIT Vs. Rampiyari Khemka [1067] 63 ITR 367 (Cal.); Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 333 (Cal); CIT Vs. Kiran Debi Singhee [1967] 65 ITR 167 (MP); CIT Vs. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP) and Duggal and Co. Vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456 (Delhi), etc. “ 2011:DHC:5844-DB ITA 504 OF 2008 Page 11 of 22 7. This position of law was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal or before us. The entire case, therefore rest on the issue as to whether the Assessing Officer had made the assessment without application of mind or…

CIT vs. Nalwa Investment Ltd

ITA/1345/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 263Section 56

…ch as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. ln a more recent judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT 269 ITR 7!, the Hon'ble Court considering various judicial pronouncements passed earlier viz' Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) K.A. Ramaswami crr6ttiat 220 lrR 657 (Mad.) etc. held that absence of proper enquiry in a matter renders an order erroneous ITA No.270 of 2010 & ITA No.1345 of 2010 Page 5 of 16 5. as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In view of above, assessment order is held to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of r…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Dlf Power Ltd

ITA/176/2009HC Delhi09 Oct 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80Section 80A(2)

…ply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case.” He submitted that the view taken in the aforesaid judgment was reaffirmed by this Court in Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456. 13. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Section 115JB of the Act was pari materia with Section 115JA and insofar as calculation of book profits under both these provisions are concerned., he submitted that clause (c) appended to explanation to Section 115JB(2) was identical to…